Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Stalin was in no way following the writings of Marx. Marx believed that the peasants were an essential part of the Communist revolution and certainly never advocated for their systematic repression. Stalin, on the other hand, viewed them merely as a tool to fund his industrialization projects.

The idea that Stalin tried to collectivize the peasants so as to get greater control over the grain harvest and thus through sale of the resulting state windfall of grain finance industrialization may in fact be true. However it appears that instead collectivization of agriculture was a disaster on all levels and quite failed to produce anything like the expected windfall of grain for sale to raise capital for industrialization.

Instead capital for industrialization was raised by means of massive, hidden turnover taxes that hit Soviet workers and consumers very hard. These turnover taxes were on the order of 70-200%. In other words Stalin screwed the workers and the peasantry. It appears that in the early 30's the standard of living of Soviet workers fell significantly due to this and the massive dislocation generated by the first 5 year plan.

In fact it appears that the state in the first 5 year plan was quite effective at, to use a Marxian term, extracting "surplus value" from the workers and peasants through hidden taxes. The human costs of the turnover taxes were prodigious. Collectivization proved to be a lot less effective at extracting the "surplus" than Stalin and his colleagues thought it would be. Although the human cost in lives was terrible.

Over all the state seems to have gained very little in economic terms from all that effort. It seems to have actually been squeezing the workers and the consumers (which of course included peasants), that provided the necessary capital.

It's a toss up as to which is worse in that poem: It's bat crap crazy view of history or the incredibly bad quality of the verse.
I love the bit about how Stalin never was heiling;the Hitler/Stalin pact seems to have passed him by.

Yes, this is always conveniently forgotten by Stalinists. For all the pride that they may take in the Soviet Union fighting with huge losses against Nazi Germany, Stalin was the most effective collaborator Hitler ever had.

Yes, this is always conveniently forgotten by Stalinists. For all the pride that they may take in the Soviet Union fighting with huge losses against Nazi Germany, Stalin was the most effective collaborator Hitler ever had.

I don't imagine Stalin LIKED Hitler. They had a common hostility towards Poland. Once that was dealt with, Hitler attacked. There are good grounds for believing that Stalin also contemplated war, only later.

I don't imagine Stalin LIKED Hitler. They had a common hostility towards Poland. Once that was dealt with, Hitler attacked. There are good grounds for believing that Stalin also contemplated war, only later.

I don't imagine it either. They never met, so they didn't have an opportunity to turn on their famous charm for each other. Nevertheless, their carving up together of Poland is what made them effective collaborators of each other. The fact that Hitler betrayed Stalin only adds to the list of negatives that you can put beside Stalin's name; he was foolish to trust Hitler.

I don't imagine it either. They never met, so they didn't have an opportunity to turn on their famous charm for each other. Nevertheless, their carving up together of Poland is what made them effective collaborators of each other. The fact that Hitler betrayed Stalin only adds to the list of negatives that you can put beside Stalin's name; he was foolish to trust Hitler.

I don't think he trusted him either, and Sozhenitsyn has been taken to task for making this suggestion in (I'm pretty sure) The First Circle. Stalin was not confident in Hitler; he was confident in his own unwarranted belief that Hitler could not or would not attack in 1941. Why Stalin was so sure of this is rather mysterious, but one recent historian, David Murphy, stresses the fact that Stalin's terrorised intelligence chiefs were inclined to tell their master only what they thought he wanted to hear, so that whatever idea originally became fixed in his mind tended to stay there.

I don't think he trusted him either, and Sozhenitsyn has been taken to task for making this suggestion in (I'm pretty sure) The First Circle. Stalin was not confident in Hitler; he was confident in his own unwarranted belief that Hitler could not or would not attack in 1941. Why Stalin was so sure of this is rather mysterious, but one recent historian, David Murphy, stresses the fact that Stalin's terrorised intelligence chiefs were inclined to tell their master only what they thought he wanted to hear, so that whatever idea originally became fixed in his mind tended to stay there.

His belief that Hitler wouldn't invade, for whatever reason, seems to have been incredibly fixed. He didn't listen to anyone; Churchill, Mao, Sorge, German defectors etc...

His belief that Hitler wouldn't invade, for whatever reason, seems to have been incredibly fixed. He didn't listen to anyone; Churchill, Mao, Sorge, German defectors etc...

It really is mysterious. An all-powerful and suspicious tyrant, in control of a multitude of spies and elaborate intelligence networks, fails to notice on his very borders the assembly of the most powerful army in the world. Breathtaking! Although the Germans were caught out too in Normandy at D-Day, I'm sure Stalin's case is more extreme. It is one of the most puzzling things in the history of the 20th Century.

Yes, this is always conveniently forgotten by Stalinists. For all the pride that they may take in the Soviet Union fighting with huge losses against Nazi Germany, Stalin was the most effective collaborator Hitler ever had.

If Stalin was defeated by Hitler he probably would have used him to run a puppet state.

If Stalin was defeated by Hitler he probably would have used him to run a puppet state.

I don't believe there's any chance Hitler would have risked leaving old Iosif Vissarionovich alive, not even as a toilet attendant.

__________________I don't see how an article of clothing can be indecent. A person, yes. - Robert A. Heinlein
If Christ died for our sins, dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them? - Jules Feiffer
If you are going through hell, keep going - Winston Churchill

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

Ah, yes. Puppet boss of the "Independent State of Croatia". When a country has "Democratic" in its name, like N Korea, you know it's a tyranny. When it has "Independent" you know it's the servile client of a tyranny. And then again we have King Leopold of the Belgians whose monstrous slave Empire was called the "Congo Free State"!

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf